Drink driving ban

[addictfreak]

sorry i totally disagree with any corrupt actions. she failed, end of story. get her to the nick, get her tested on the big daddy machine. if it proved she wasn't pissed then apologize and give her lift back to the car. from the moment she failed she was effectively a criminal. all that time and effort wasted on a pisshead. 2 cop cars, 2 breathalyzers. how many other drunks got away with being pissed whilst in charge? because they were treating her special? did a drunk driver get thru the net and cause someone innocent some harm whilst at least 4 coppers were taken for mugs?

Actually shes NOT guilty until its proven in a court. Thats the way it works in this country

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Whether she's got problems or not, they're not her employers.

actually that's not strictly true. if it can be proven at any point that she exhibited her problems at work and it wasn't dealt with, then her employers, unfortunately (and wrongly in my opinion) are liable.

 

[PaulB]

and another thing, did the kid crash into her or was that another cover up? did this info come from her or independent witness's?

No, that's definite. The witness who erm...witnessed (!) it told the bizzies that's what happened and that's why they were aplogetic when they bagged her.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

nope, dui is different i believe? besides i said effectively

 

[PaulB]

actually that's not strictly true. if it can be proven at any point that she exhibited her problems at work and it wasn't dealt with, then her employers, unfortunately (and wrongly in my opinion) are liable.

But as mentioned several times in the thread, she didn't and was regarded as a model employee who had the backing of all her colleagues.

 

[addictfreak]

There's no wiggle room here though. She signed a contract of employment and fell foul of the terms. The job necessitates having a driving licence and she hasn't got one (or won't have soon) so therefore can't do the job. It's the same in my job and I certainly don't think it should be any other way. Whether she's got problems or not, they're not her employers.

Yes thats the way it is if you apply the rules 100%. Im certainly not trying to make excuse for her actions. But not all of us have straight forward lives, sometimes things go in a direction we just cant control. Maybe im just used to being in an occupation thats geared to helping people, but if was an employer and she had previously been a good employee, I would like to think I would find out all the circumstances before making the situation worse.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

are her immediate superiors trained to spot this? are the immediate supervisors iosh or similar?

i speak from experience of nearly falling foul of this when i employed 14 electricians. luckily i had dealt with the situation correctly and followed set out procedures. the claim was thrown out. i.e., when i say i was lucky, i meant i was lucky i chose a good employment solicitor to write my drugs and alcohol policy and followed it.

 

[marinyork]

Yes but Noodley got it wrong. And as has been mentioned, you're only entitled to a blood test if the reading is between 35 and 50. If it's over that, there's no point as it's a definite fail. They only entitle you to a blood test if it's close and it's recommended you ask for one as by the time the doctor who performs it turns up, the time that's elapsed reduces the level of alcohol.

I couldn't give a monkeys what the police regs say, as I've already pointed out they aren't complete (although it is quite encouraging to read Cubist and Noodley's views). Presumably she had a go on the proper calibrated machine at the station though. It seems quite likely that the driver was telling porkies but it is facts supported by evidence that will determine her story, I do not care for these certainties that people are bandying about. The issue isn't whether she was over the drink drive limit, it is why. If we can produce more evidence that we think she was telling porkies and it was solely down to drinking by negation then that is the end of that.

I don't particularly have a view either way as to what action should be taken in terms of her job. On the one hand I see addictfreaks's point of view but on the other hand having worked in the NHS and experienced the unjustified preferential treatment bordering on nomenklatura I can see shauncollier's point of view also. I know it certainly wouldn't have been tolerated in the positions when I worked in a hospital. As a story though I think it does illustrate perfectly gist of the OP.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Maybe im just used to being in an occupation thats geared to helping people, but if was an employer and she had previously been a good employee, I would like to think I would find out all the circumstances before making the situation worse.

i would agree with that line of thought in most employments. however, as a former and future patient, i would prefer it if my local health authority took a hard line and protected me from people like her until she was proven innocent, perhaps desk duty and counseling? if she is a caring person as i'm sure most nurses are, then surely she would understand the situation she finds herself in warrants a hard line for the protection of patients.

 

[addictfreak]

i would agree with that line of thought in most employments. however, as a former and future patient, i would prefer it if my local health authority took a hard line and protected me from people like her until she was proven innocent, perhaps desk duty and counseling? if she is a caring person as i'm sure most nurses are, then surely she would understand the situation she finds herself in warrants a hard line for the protection of patients.

Absolutely, I certainly didnt mean to suggest that she should carry on caring for patients. I would redeploy her to other duties while her problems are addressed, even then I would only allow a phased return with supervision. This is of course all hypothetical.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

interesting tho

 

[PaulB]

Maybe im just used to being in an occupation thats geared to helping people, but if was an employer and she had previously been a good employee, I would like to think I would find out all the circumstances before making the situation worse.

They're nurses, mate.

 

[PaulB]

I couldn't give a monkeys what the police regs say, as I've already pointed out they aren't complete (although it is quite encouraging to read Cubist and Noodley's views). Presumably she had a go on the proper calibrated machine at the station though.

It's not police regs, mate, it's the law of the land and I don't think they'll be changing anytime soon. And of course she had a go on the proper machine at the station and that's why she was kept in custody until 2am this morning.

 

[Cubist]

One thing of course that we haven't considered is how the nurse herself is currently feeling. Alcoholism is an illness and must be treated as such. If she now comes clean and tells her employers that she is an alcoholic, their duty of care towards her will in part outweigh the disciplinary actions that they could or would take against her.


The fact that she could have wiped out my family on the way to her next call, or given the next patient ten times the normal dose of whatever is, apparently, irrelevant.

 

[addictfreak]

They're nurses, mate.

That doesnt mean to say that the employers come from a nursing background!